2026:JHHC:19518 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6024 of 2026 Sumit Kumar, son of Amar Mandal … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. --- 05/03.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2025 in connection with S.T. No. 192 of 2025 arising out of Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 469 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka. 3. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 42 of 2026 vide order dated 09.04.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on account of his custody since 20.06.2025. The charge was framed on 11.12.2025 and the 1st witness has been examined only on 10.06.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is a case of organized crime. The earlier rejection order passed in B.A. No. 42 of 2026 reveals that there are 102 FIRs lodged and 2690 complaints are there. It is also mentioned in the said order that altogether 9.99 crores have been defrauded. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the bail application was earlier rejected on merits , this Court 2026:JHHC:19518 2 is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, there can be no reason for non-production of witnesses by the prosecution before the court. 8. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses/materials collected during investigation /expert report etc are promptly produced before the learned court. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and Director, prosecution to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:03.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:04.07.2026